An angle of this that I don't think gets brought up - conscientiousness is a measurable personality trait (EQ) - and it isn't equally distributed across the population!
You can have two people with almost identical positions on controversial issues on something like Israel-Palestine. But your ability to phrase and articulate your position can drastically change which side of the hate speech line you are on.
These sorts of policies are not actually in pursuit of reducing actual received harm - what's actually going on is a redrawing of our class system. People with high EQ are excluding low EQ people who can't "behave" in twenty-first century society. Even if you have never personally harmed someone - you won't get access to the same kinds of institutions - academia, journalism, politics, etc.
Reading these laws makes me think less of 1984 and more of, like, the 21st century equivalent of jaywalking or zoning rules or even redlining. We have new rules about how to fit in and behave - but the rules are not going to be equally or fairly distributed.
Keep in mind, you haven't heard the word "pluralism" as a democratic ideal in the last 20 years.
Your point about EQ's role in speech and its unequal distribution is spot on. It underscores a significant issue: those who can't master the nuances of "acceptable" speech are getting marginalized, especially in fields like academia, journalism, politics, and now social media with this type of legislation.
Plain, straightforward speech has immense value. It promotes clarity and honesty, ensuring ideas are communicated without the need for high-EQ code. Restricting political discourse to high-EQ speech to avoid offense stifles genuine expression and hampers robust debate. This not only limits free speech but also degrades the quality of political dialogue, making it more about adhering to social norms than addressing real issues.
We need to value pluralism and strive for inclusivity in our discourse, ensuring that all voices, regardless of EQ, can be heard and respected.
Being a free speech absolutist ensures that all ideas, even those clumsily expressed, get a fair hearing. It fosters an environment where truth and innovation can thrive, unhampered by artificial constraints on how thoughts must be articulated.
Speech shouldn't require constant PR massaging to be accepted / "legal"
You can have two people with almost identical positions on controversial issues on something like Israel-Palestine. But your ability to phrase and articulate your position can drastically change which side of the hate speech line you are on.
These sorts of policies are not actually in pursuit of reducing actual received harm - what's actually going on is a redrawing of our class system. People with high EQ are excluding low EQ people who can't "behave" in twenty-first century society. Even if you have never personally harmed someone - you won't get access to the same kinds of institutions - academia, journalism, politics, etc.
Reading these laws makes me think less of 1984 and more of, like, the 21st century equivalent of jaywalking or zoning rules or even redlining. We have new rules about how to fit in and behave - but the rules are not going to be equally or fairly distributed.
Keep in mind, you haven't heard the word "pluralism" as a democratic ideal in the last 20 years.